ORDER Arun Mishra, J. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the communication dated 11-6-2002 Annexure-P/7 which has been issued pursuant to the direction issued by the Registrar, Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya on 10-6-2002 prohibiting the petitioner from appearing in the final year examination of MS (ENT), which was held in the month of June, 2002. Petitioner has been prohibited to appear in the examination on the basis that an enquiry is going on into the thesis submitted by the petitioner as that has been prima facie found to be copy of the thesis which was earlier submitted in the year 1997-98 by Dr. Akhil Shrivastava. Petitioner submits that the action of prohibiting the petitioner before conclusion of the enquiry into the thesis is illegal as such communication P/7 be quashed. Petitioner has not indulged in unfair means. No conclusion has been reached. Enquiry committee has been constituted consisting of 3 persons. Petitioner has no confidence in the said enquiry committee as none of the persons is from the department of ENT. Petitioner alleges enquiry committee is biased. The respondent No. 1 in its return contends that as per the regulations framed by the Medical Council of India for P.G. Medical Education Regulation in exercise of the powers conferred by section 33 r/w 19A of the Indian Medical Council 1956, it is necessary for each candidate to submit thesis at least 6 months before the theoretical, clinical/practical examination and it is only on acceptance of the thesis that the candidate is permitted to sit in the theory and clinical/practical and oral examination. The Thesis was submitted by the petitioner sometime in October/November 2001, which was sent to University on 7-11-2001. Immediately thereafter complaint was submitted by Dr. Guha that the thesis submitted by the petitioner was infact a copy of a previously submitted thesis by one Dr. Akhil Shrivastava. The matter was examined by the University and it has been found that both the thesis i.e. of the petitioner; Dr. Manish Singhal submitted in the year 2000-2001 and that of Dr. Akhil Shrivastava who had submitted his thesis in 1997-98 are verbatim copies. The University u/s 52(4)(v) passed order on 7-2-2002 debarring Dr. Akhil Shrivastava. The matter was examined by the University and it has been found that both the thesis i.e. of the petitioner; Dr. Manish Singhal submitted in the year 2000-2001 and that of Dr. Akhil Shrivastava who had submitted his thesis in 1997-98 are verbatim copies. The University u/s 52(4)(v) passed order on 7-2-2002 debarring Dr. R.K. Shukla Head of the ENT Department for a period of 5 years w.e.f. 21-1-2002 from functioning as a Guide of P.G. Student and the petitioner's thesis was referred to the Unfair Means Committee and the recommendation in respect of the petitioner's case was sought from the Unfair Means Committee. Thereafter a show-cause notice P/1 was issued to the petitioner by the University on 20-3-2002. Petitioner submitted a reply P/2 on 1-4-2002. Looking into the technical nature of the case the Unfair Means Committee sought opinion from the experts vide their communication dated 2-5-2002 and therefore the Dean Medical College vide order dated 7-5-2002 designated 3 Doctors for examining the matter and to submit their opinion to the University. Thereafter notices were issued by the Committee to the petitioner on 20-5-2002, 4-6-2002, 10-6-2002, 14-6-2002 and 18-6-2002. However, the petitioner chose not to appear before the committee however he submitted a reply before the committee on 5-6-2002. Petitioner is not participating in the enquiry and deliberately delaying it. The action is proper and in accordance with the regulations and calls for no interference. Respondent No. 2 Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur has also taken the same stand and it has been contended that since the thesis has not been accepted, the petitioner has no right to appear in the final examination. The intervenor; Dr. B.K. Guha has filed an application for intervention and the stand taken by the University and the respondent No. 1 has been supported by the intervenor. Shri Manoj Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action taken by the respondents amounts to put a cart in front of horse. The enquiry has not been concluded and is still going on, thus, petitioner could not be prohibited from appearing in the final examination held in 2002. The action is absolutely illegal and is violative of principles of natural justice and petitioner has been punished in anticipation of conclusion of enquiry, which may ultimately find the petitioner an innocent person not guilty of copying thesis. The action is absolutely illegal and is violative of principles of natural justice and petitioner has been punished in anticipation of conclusion of enquiry, which may ultimately find the petitioner an innocent person not guilty of copying thesis. Second phase of his submission is that only persons from the college have been nominated as member of enquiry, considering the vitiated atmosphere of college no free and fair enquiry is possible and it is also submitted that the enquiry has been initiated on the basis of the complaint lodged by Dr. B.K. Guha who was earlier Superintendent of the said Hospital attached to the Medical College, thus, the petitioner submits that the enquiry may be directed to be conducted by some outside experts who may not be influenced by either party. Shri R.S. Jha, Dy. A.G. has attracted attention of this Court to the Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations 2000 framed by the Medical Council of India, Regulation 14(4)(a), which contains provision about the thesis. It is necessary as per the said provision that the thesis, shall be examined by a minimum of three examiners; one internal and two external examiners, who shall not be the examiners for Theory and Clinical; and on the "acceptance" of the thesis by two examiners, the candidate shall appear for the final examination. Shri S.C. Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has also taken the same stand. He submitted that the University is ready to get the enquiry conducted by outside experts, but, the conduct of the petitioner indicates that he wants to delay the enquiry and allegation of bias is baseless. Two thesis can be perused, they are verbatim to each other. Still the enquiry has been directed to be held so that the petitioner may not raise the grievance that he has been condemned unheard. He relied on additional reply filed pursuant to amendment application filed by the petitioner, in which stand has been taken that the petitioner cannot appear in the final examination until unless thesis has been accepted, thus, action of the Registrar of the university is just and proper and in consonance with the regulations framed by the Medical Council of India. Shri Jagdish Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the intervenor has supported the stand of respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Shri Jagdish Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the intervenor has supported the stand of respondents Nos. 1 and 2. The first question for consideration is whether the action of the University in prohibiting the petitioner from appearing in the final examination held in 2002 is illegal and arbitrary. The Medical Council of India has framed the regulations, called "Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000" in exercise of power conferred by section 33 read with 19A of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. These regulations have been framed with the previous consent of the Central Government. Regulation 14 provides for the examination, which provides that the examinations shall be organized on the basis of grading or marking system, to evaluate and certify candidate's level of knowledge, skill and competence at the end of the training and obtaining a minimum of 50% marks in theory as well as practical separately shall be mandatory for passing the whole examination. The examination for M.S., M.D., D.M., M.Ch. shall be held at the end of 3 academic years (six academic terms) and for diploma at the end of 2 academic years (four academic terms). The academic term shall mean six months training period. Clause (4)(a) of regulation 14 deals with the Thesis which is quoted below: 14. Examinations. The examinations shall be organized on the basis of grading or marking system to evaluate and certify candidate's level of knowledge, skill and competence at the end of the training and obtaining a minimum of 50% marks in theory as well as practical separately shall be mandatory for passing the whole examination. The examination for M.S., M.D., D.M., M.Ch. shall be held at the end of 3 academic years (six academic terms) and for diploma at the end of 2 academic years (four academic terms). The academic terms shall mean six months training period. (4) I. Doctor of Medicine (M.D.)/Master of Surgery (M.S.) M.D./M.S. examinations, in any subject shall consist of Thesis, Theory papers, and Clinical/Practical and Oral examinations. (a) Thesis Every candidate shall carry out work on an assigned research project under the guidance of a recognised Postgraduate Teacher, the results of which shall be written up and submitted in the form of a Thesis. (a) Thesis Every candidate shall carry out work on an assigned research project under the guidance of a recognised Postgraduate Teacher, the results of which shall be written up and submitted in the form of a Thesis. Work for writing the Thesis is aimed at contributing to the development of a spirit of enquiry, besides exposing the candidate to the techniques of research, critical analysis, acquaintance with the latest advances in medical sciences and the manner of identifying and consulting available literature. Thesis shall be submitted at least six months before the Theoretical and Clinical/Practical Examination. The thesis shall be examined by a minimum of three examiners; one internal and two external examiners, who shall not be the examiners for Theory and Clinical; and on the acceptance of the thesis by two examiners, the candidate shall appear for the final examination. A bare reading of the above quoted provision makes it clear that it is mandatory under the regulations which have statutory force that on "acceptance" of thesis by two examiners, the candidate shall appear for the final examination. In the instant case, thesis has not been yet accepted by the two examiners as it has not been sent to the examiners for the reason that it has been found to be verbatim copy of the earlier thesis submitted by Dr. Akhil Shrivastava in the year 1997-98 and enquiry is going on. Unfair Means Committee has asked for the report from college in turn another Enquiry committee was constituted on 7-5-2002 as per the Direction of the University by Dean Netaji Subhashchandra Bose Medical College, Jabalpur consisting of three members. It appears that the committee fixed certain dates, but, the petitioner did not participate. On some of the dates, it is submitted that the petitioner attended the hearing. Whatever that may be, since in the instant case, there is a serious allegation against the petitioner about submitting verbatim copy of the earlier thesis and until unless it is accepted by the two examiners as per regulation 14(4)(a) of regulations candidate cannot be allowed to appear in the final examination. Appearance in the final examination is conditional on the "acceptance of thesis" by two examiners, thus, it cannot be said that prohibiting the petitioner from appearing in the examination by Registrar, Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur is not an act in accordance with the regulations. Appearance in the final examination is conditional on the "acceptance of thesis" by two examiners, thus, it cannot be said that prohibiting the petitioner from appearing in the examination by Registrar, Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur is not an act in accordance with the regulations. The action is in consonance with the provision of regulation 14(4)(a) of the Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, framed by the Medical Council of India. Shri Manoj Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the University has not sent the Thesis for the last three years of even a single person to the examiners as provided under the regulation 14(4)(a) of the regulations. Thus, the petitioner has been singled out for the illegal and arbitrary action. Thus, the proposed recourse to send thesis to examiner only in the case of the petitioner is discriminatory and unjustified. The averments made in the petition in this regard have not been traversed by the University in the return. If that is the state of affairs and there is any violation of the regulation framed by the Medical Council of India called "Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000" the University has to look into that matter, but, the petitioner cannot ripe fruits on the basis of any such violation of provisions of regulation 14(4)(a). Court cannot perpetrate such an illegality by issuing a command to respondent. Suffice is to observe that the University has to observe the requirement of sending thesis to examiner as provided by the regulation 14(4)(a) of Regulations. Plea of discrimination is available in the case of equality before law not for claiming similar treatment when action with which parity is claimed is unlawful. Writ cannot be issued or claimed for unlawful similar treatment. Coming to the next submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the enquiry should be directed to be conducted by the outside experts. Suffice is to observe that as the prayer is fairly accepted by counsel appearing for the University, it is directed that let the enquiry be conducted by a committee of three experts, who are from some outside University and let them submit their report after, hearing the petitioner. Petitioner has to be given only one opportunity of hearing and making representation by the committee. Petitioner has to be given only one opportunity of hearing and making representation by the committee. In case petitioner fails to report to the committee on being noticed, it shall be open to such a committee to take action on comparison of two thesis, Copy of thesis which was submitted by Dr. Akhil Shrivastava, has been supplied by the University with the return to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner is having the material on the basis of which allegation has been levelled of copying the thesis which was submitted by him in October/November, 2001. Let a committee be constituted within 15 days from today. Let the enquiry committee submit its report to the University within one month thereafter, after issuing notice to the petitioner of hearing in the manner aforesaid. Writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.